LINKS TO KEY EVALUATIONS
The evaluation of restorative justice and restorative practices has extended beyond qualitative evaluation of individual cases to quantitative evaluation of programs. The largest single evaluation of restorative justice to date has been undertaken by Professors Heather Strang and Lawrence Sherman. Both were involved in pioneering evaluations of restorative justice in the Australian Capital Territory, and then across the United Kingdom.
Their Campbell Collaboration meta-study Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review was published in late 2013. It reported the results of ten comparable experiments. Each experiment reported post-treatment data of repeat crime two years after cases were randomly assigned to either Restorative Justice Conferencing [RJC] or to more traditional criminal justice processing. Strang and Sherman found that:
“the evidence of a relationship between conferencing and subsequent convictions or arrests over two years […] is clear and compelling, with nine out of 10 results in the predicted direction… The impact of RJCs on 2-year convictions was reported to be cost-effective in the 7 UK experiments, with up to 14 times as much benefit in costs of the crimes prevented (in London), and 8 times overall, as the cost of delivering RJCs. The effect of conferencing on victims’ satisfaction with the handling of their cases is uniformly positive…”
Strang and Sherman concluded that:
“RJCs delivered in the manner tested by the ten eligible tests appear likely to reduce future detected crimes among the kinds of offenders who are willing to consent to RJCs, and whose victims are also willing to consent […] Among the kinds of cases in which both offenders and victims are willing to meet, RJCs seem likely to reduce future crime. Victims’ satisfaction with the handling of their cases is consistently higher for victims assigned to RJCs than for victims whose cases were assigned to normal criminal justice processing.” [emphasis added]
Other studies, reviews, reports and recommendations outline what restorative responses may be most appropriate in the justice system, &/or how these processes are currently used to address certain cases of institutional abuse, sexual abuse and family violence. For example, reports from the Australian Institute of Criminology analyse criminal justice system responses to family violence in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These reports conclude that therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice may help improve the experience of the criminal justice process for both victims and offenders.
A March 2016 report for the Commonwealth Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse assessed empirical evidence from restorative justice programs nationally and internationally, and concluded that restorative justice can be used to good effect in response to cases of sexual abuse. The report outlines the particular conditions required for therapeutic outcomes to be achieved. The research findings of a UK study on both survivors and non-survivors of sexual violence outlined the positive attitudes expressed towards the use of restorative justice in these cases. The Australian Defence Abuse Response Taskforce, which operated from 2013 to 2016, provided a restorative engagement conference in over six hundred cases, many of which involved sexual offending. The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission Independent Review into sex discrimination and sexual harassment in Victoria Police recommended a Redress Scheme that is victim-centric, provides case management, and processes to address the harm caused by abuse. That program is now being delivered.
Jacqueline Joudo Larsen’s 2014 AIC report on Restorative justice in the Australian criminal justice system recommended that
“future research would benefit by extending the focus from asking ‘does it work?’, to considering how, when and for whom it works best in order to contribute to the growing evidence that seeks to provide a more nuanced understanding of the circumstances under which restorative justice is most effective.”
| A 2022 report from Swinburne University’s Centre for Forensic Behavioral Science, prepared for The Children’s Court of Victoria, examines the longitudinal effects of group conferencing on youth recidivism among a cohort that included high-risk young people. Bonett, R.J.W., Lloyd, C.D., & Ogloff, J.R.P. (2022) Group Conferencing Effects on Youth Recidivism and Elements of Effective Conferences. Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia The authors used life-course methodologies to explore different elements of the group conference, including different types of victim-, family-, and police participation, and to determine whether conferencing effects were consistent across different types of crime. The treatment sample involved 836 young people processed through the metropolitan Melbourne group conferencing program between 2012 and 2018. The control sample involved 1530 young people who appeared in the Children’s Court Clinic, in comparable cases, during the same period. An essential finding is that the Victorian group conferencing program significantly reduces recidivism. Second, group conferencing is appropriate with higher risk young people charged with violent crimes and more serious property crimes. Third, reduced recidivism is not contingent on a face-to-face victim-offender interaction. Instead, victims of crime may choose how they participate, if at all, without compromising the aim to reduce crime. An essential finding is that the Victorian group conferencing program significantly reduces recidivism. Second, group conferencing is appropriate with higher risk young people charged with violent crimes and more serious property crimes. Third, reduced recidivism is not contingent on a face-to-face victim-offender interaction. Instead, victims of crime may choose how they participate, if at all, without compromising the aim to reduce crime. There was an enhanced reduction in recidivism when primary and secondary victims attended together. This effect was also consistent when secondary victims (someone indirectly affected by the crime such as a family member of the victim) attended in the place of a primary victim. Attendance by a police informant was related to lower recidivism when compared to conferences attended by a youth resource officer in place of a police informant. Finally, after taking into account all the relevant variables, the sentence received after returning to court did not predict recidivism. The findings from this important research are consistent with the practical theory used in contemporary skills development for group conference facilitators and program administrators: When we expand the social network of people affected by a situation, the members of that network can more readily make sense of their situation, then negotiate an agreement to improve their situation: the group can more readily transform conflict into cooperation. Title: Restorative justice conferencing for domestic and family violence and sexual violence: Evaluation of Phase Three of the ACT Restorative Justice Scheme Authors: Siobhan Lawler, Hayley Boxall and Christopher Dowling Series: Australian Institute of Criminology Research Report no. 33 [January 2025] Some of this report’s key findings relate to the effectiveness of the program and process: 1: There was broad overall support for the use of RJ as an alternative justice pathway for DFV and sexual violence matters, and an identified need for this program 2: There were high levels of satisfaction with Phase Three processes among participating persons harmed and persons responsible 5: Phase Three was able to meet many of the justice-interests identified by persons harmed 6: There was little evidence that persons harmed were pressured or manipulated into participating in the Scheme, or felt unsafe during the process 7: Suitability assessment involves balancing person responsible readiness with informed decision-making and the justice-needs of the person harmed Other findings relate to areas for improvement in administration and in understanding: 3: There were significant delays associated with the allocation of matters to Convenors 4: The referral of sexual violence matters was much lower than anticipated 8: Very few matters were referred post-sentence, despite considerable support from stakeholders 9: The engagement of persons responsible in support services was a key component of Phase Three, but accessibility was limited 10: A key barrier to the referral of matters was the perception that RJ was a ‘soft’ option In short, most of these challenges result from a lack of the requisite understanding and/or skills within other agencies – so improvements need to involve the whole justice system. The Report’s recommendations relate to these areas for systemic improvement: 1: The RJU should take steps to increase their capacity and shorten the wait-times to access the service 2: Stakeholders should be provided ongoing training in the delivery and operation of Phase Three 3: Perceptions that RJ is ‘soft justice’ should be challenged and addressed among referring entities 4: The development of referral guidelines and eligibility criteria beyond offence type and stage of CJS should be considered 5: Clearer guidelines and training should be developed to improve understanding about the relationship between RJ and sentencing 6: The RJU should work with relevant criminal justice agencies to increase post-sentence referrals to Phase Three 7: Investigate options to work with communities to encourage buy-in to Phase Three from First Nations and other culturally diverse participants 8: The RJU should develop formal disengagement processes to support participants during the post-conference period 9: RJU staff should be provided clear guidance about how to work with clients where there is an intervention order 10: The RJU should continue to collect data to facilitate ongoing evaluation and improvement Ultimately, this is a very positive and significant evaluation, reflecting the result of hard work over several decades by many dedicated professionals. A consistent theme is that effective service reform requires a shared mindset about the nature of restorative work and a solid, evidence-based skill set among service-providing agencies. The work of the ACT RJU and other key agencies is demonstrating a better way to manage some of our most pressing and distressing social challenges. |
ASSOCIATION SUBMISSIONS & OTHER REPORTS
Restorative Justice and the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime:
A Scoping Review of Service Provision in England and Wales [2021]
Narrating the Restorative Justice Offer:
An analysis of informational materials used in England and Wales [2022]
Submission to the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence [2015]
ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTERS, 2014 – 2020
VARJ Newsletter August 2014
VARJ Newsletter December 2014
VARJ Newsletter Spring-Summer 2016
VARJ Newsletter Winter-Spring 2017
VARJ Newsletter Winter 2018
The Australian Association for Restorative Justice distributed its first
Review of Current Practice to members in mid-2020.
MESSAGES to the AARJ MEMBERSHIP, 2021 – 2024
From 2014 through 2018, the Committee of the Victorian Association for Restorative Justice distributed several newsletters annually to Association members.
In 2020, following the formation of the Australian Association for Restorative Justice (AARJ), the Committee distributed an annual Review of Current Practice to Association members.
Association members then requested more regular mailouts, which provide information on relevant events and on job vacancies for restorative practitioners, program managers, and evaluators.
Since 2021, these regular mailouts from the AARJ Committee to Association members have also included longer reflective pieces, with links to relevant resources.
These reflective pieces are collated here, by year:
AARJ Committee: Messages to Members, 2024
AARJ Committee: messages to Members, 2023
VIDEO: 2024 Contemporary Restorative Practice Conference, Canberra